Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 245

                                
1875.]              TAYLOR V. HUDGINS.               245
Opinion of the Court.
"tenances, and all my (his) estate, right, title, and interest
" thereunto such person or persons, and for such price or prices
" as he shall think proper," '*  * and to "sign and deliver
a and acknowledge all such mortgages, liens, or deeds of hy"pothecation
as shall be necessary for the absolute granting
" f the powers unto all su6h persons interested."
By virtue of this power, I. H. Finch obtained, in the parish
of " St. Mary's," in the State of Louisiana, from appellee, the
sum of two thousand five hundred and seventy-five dollars
($2,575), and, as attorney of appellant, executed a note and
deed of trust on the land in Tyler county, described in the
pleadings and exhibits. The note and trust deed were executed
on the 12th of May, 1855, and the latter recorded July
lth, 1855. The trustee (Curtiss) failing to execute the trust
after the maturity of the note, Hudgins brought suit to fore.
close the mortgage. The defendant excepted, answered with
a general denial, and filed a plea of non est factumr, in the
following words: "Defendant says that he never made, exe"
cuted, and delivered the said pretended promissory note men'
tioned and described in plaintiff's petition, to any person
' whatever; nor signed his name to the same, nor authorized
"any other person whatever to make and execute said pre"
tended promissory note, nor sign his name to the same,
"wherefore he pleads non estfaetumn," etc.
A jury was waived, the cause was submitted to the court,
and a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of
five thousand nine hundred and sixty-five dollars ($5,965)-the
amount of principal and interest due, and the usual decree of
foreclosure and sale.
Appellant assigns as error the overruling by the court, his
exceptions to plaintiff's original and amended petitions, and in
overruling his objections to the introduction in evidence of the
note sued on, and the power of attorney to Finch, and deed of
trust executed by the latter (in favor of Hudgins) as the attorney,
in fact, of appellant, as set forth in bills of exceptions.
The other assignments of error are embraced in those stated.